Amend SARFAESI Act, says Justice Ramachandran
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Amend SARFAESI Act, says Justice Ramachandran":
on OA 796/o6 (DRT- Visakapatnam)
said
" the bank did not maintain the accounts properly
in the loan account and there is no explanation from
the bank so far as maintaining of the acount is concernred
and it is clear in all the bank cases and the account copy
will fasten the liability but in this case the account copy
itself is incorrect and people will believe the account copy
of the bank and this account copy seems to be totally
incorrect inview of the several pay slips filed
by the defendents which are marked
as EX B13 to EX B18 containing many books.
In these CIRCUMSTANCES THEACCOUNT COPY
CANNOT BE BELIVED AND THEREFORE THE OAhas to be
allowed only for the amount of Rs. 1128685/- with simple interest 6%pa.,
from the date of OA till realisation.
This recovery certificate is being issued
since it is public money and there is no document
to show how much amount acually due to the applicant bank.
The bank never proved the amount due.
It is the intial burden on the bank according to the
Evidence Act Sec 101 to 103 and the intial burden is not
discharged by the bank.
Therfore, the bank cannot base on the demerits
of the defendents case."
The case before DRAT., Chennai. Actually paid excess Rs. 4 lakhs. Auditor certified submitted into court. Bank auctioned for lesser decree amount crores worth of property and locked the property from more than 4 years. It is cinima house. Bank finaned Bank guarantee only to supplier
DRT, Visakhapatnam in OA 796/06
Is it justice in INDIA?
ANYBODY REALLY PROVE JUSTICE IN INDIA STILL ALIVE
on OA 796/o6 (DRT- Visakapatnam)
said
" the bank did not maintain the accounts properly
in the loan account and there is no explanation from
the bank so far as maintaining of the acount is concernred
and it is clear in all the bank cases and the account copy
will fasten the liability but in this case the account copy
itself is incorrect and people will believe the account copy
of the bank and this account copy seems to be totally
incorrect inview of the several pay slips filed
by the defendents which are marked
as EX B13 to EX B18 containing many books.
In these CIRCUMSTANCES THEACCOUNT COPY
CANNOT BE BELIVED AND THEREFORE THE OAhas to be
allowed only for the amount of Rs. 1128685/- with simple interest 6%pa.,
from the date of OA till realisation.
This recovery certificate is being issued
since it is public money and there is no document
to show how much amount acually due to the applicant bank.
The bank never proved the amount due.
It is the intial burden on the bank according to the
Evidence Act Sec 101 to 103 and the intial burden is not
discharged by the bank.
Therfore, the bank cannot base on the demerits
of the defendents case."
The case before DRAT., Chennai. Actually paid excess Rs. 4 lakhs. Auditor certified submitted into court. Bank auctioned for lesser decree amount crores worth of property and locked the property from more than 4 years. It is cinima house. Bank finaned Bank guarantee only to supplier
DRT, Visakhapatnam in OA 796/06
Is it justice in INDIA?
ANYBODY REALLY PROVE JUSTICE IN INDIA STILL ALIVE
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment